Another whale of a tale: creationists without a “whimper”?

by Mark Looy

September 19, 2005

The alleged evolutionary history of whales continues to be a hotly debated topic
in the current creation/evolution controversy, despite what some evolutionists are
saying (including one of its more visible spokespersons, the science journalist
Carl Zimmer). The argument for whale evolution became particularly well known in
the 1990s when whale fossils, allegedly found with small legs, became major examples
of the proposed land-to-sea evolution. But is the story of whale evolution really
settled?

In a
radio interview with the ABC network in Australia, Zimmer, an American evolutionist
and science essayist (e.g., Time magazine, New York Times, etc.),
was defending molecules-to-man evolution. He claimed that creationists have now
become virtually silent regarding the fossil record of whales. Zimmer is the author
of At the Water’s Edge (www.carlzimmer.com/water_1.html), in which
he looked at two evolutionary puzzles: how fish walked ashore, and how the ancestors
of whales returned to the sea.

As summarized by ABC, Zimmer offered this tale of the walking whale: “…
[C]reationists [the radio network is summarizing Zimmer’s thoughts here] for
many years pointed to the absence of any whale fossils with legs to substantiate
the ‘evolution’ theory that whales ‘evolved’ from the land
to the sea. Apparently creationists thought it was an absurd idea. Needless to say
[continues the radio report], Mr. Zimmer is pleased that whale fossils with small
legs were discovered in the 1990s. He hasn’t heard a whimper about whales
ever since” [emphasis ours].

No whimper from creationists? That’s one big whale of a tale, for creationists
have been devoting many a printed (and web) page—and public lectures—to
assertively debate the evolutionary whale claim. For example, an entire chapter
in Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s book
Refuting Evolution has a lengthy critique of whale evolution (the full
chapter is linked to here).

To summarize the evolutionist case, evolutionists have been increasingly claiming
that the fossil ancestors of modern whales have been found, and that a transition can
be clearly seen between creatures walking on land (with legs) and whales (which
have no legs today), and include the following:

Pakicetus—however, it consisted only of jaw and skull fragments yet
it’s been claimed to be a “walking whale.”

Basilosaurus has also been offered as an ancestor to whales;
while it did have hind limbs, they were far too small to have anything
to do with walking. Yet evolutionists agreed that they were clearly functional,
not useless, and the most common view is that they were probably used for grasping
in reproduction.

Ambulocetus had hind limbs, and could walk; it is thus the
latest fossil candidate for whale evolution. However, as explained in Refuting Evolution,
it is doubtful that this supposed creature (constructed with some imagination)
had anything to do with the history of whales.

Manna from heaven? Because this site and the information it contains is free, you might think so. However, lots of hard work went into producing it. Your gifts help to produce this ‘manna’ for others. Support this site